Last year, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced she would not seek reelection in 2018. With no obvious successor, the Democratic field was suddenly wide open. In all, eight candidates for a range of backgrounds began their quest for the nomination.

The Illinois Democratic County Chair’s Association brought all of the Democratic candidates to Springfield last night. Their forum, hosted in the Hoogland Center for the Arts, gave the candidate a chance to display both their political ideologies and personal qualifications for the office.

For most of the evening, the candidates took very similar stances to one another. They promised to stand up to President Trump on his immigration policies. They expressed support for the LGBTQ community, organized labor, and abortion. Flint, Michigan was the common example for ensuring environmental protections; and theysaw open meetings as key for fighting public corruption. As Jesse Ruiz pointed out on several occasion, “we’re all Democrats up here.”

Candidate also lamented the under-funding of the Attorney General’s Office. They pointed out that the office is actually a revenue-generating office because of their successful lawsuits against white-collar criminals. After the forum, I asked Aaron Goldstein if the state could save money by allocating more resources to the courts and speeding up the legal process. He responded, “To ask that question is to answer it.” The costs of injustice, including wrongful conviction payouts, exceeds the costs of properly funding public defenders and courts from the outset.

Campaign finance was the one area where the candidates took different stances, and often attacked other candidates, initially subtly but increasingly directly as the evening went on. Mayor Rotering, Jesse Ruiz, and Governor Quinn stated that the donations they have accepted from energy companies and utilities would not impact their ability to advocate for the people. Rep. Drury, Aaron Goldstein, Sharon Fairley, and Renato Mariotti disagreed, saying the Attorney General should absolutely not take money from industries they know they will be overseeing in the future.

The weather was an issue for two of the candidates last night. Rep. Scott Drury arrived halfway through the forum. Kwame Raoul was unable to attend the forum at all, but did eventually arrive. You can watch his remarks here.

To learn more about the candidates for Attorney General, check out our Campaign Headquarters. The primary will be held March 20.

Senior strategist, statehouse reporter and political correspondent for Springfield Daily. Graduate of District 117 and UIS. Thomas covers stories in both Morgan and Sangamon Counties, as well as statewide politics.

Continue Reading

You may like

Gov. Rauner’s death penalty, public safety proposals to get House hearing Monday

An Illinois House hearing Monday afternoon in Springfield will tackle reinstating the death penalty for cop killers and mass murderers, and other issues that are part of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s latest public safety push.

Rauner injected the death penalty idea into the conversation when he changed a bill lawmakers sent to his desk. The bill, House Bill 1468, would have put a 72 hour, rather than 24 hour, waiting period for certain semi-automatic rifles. Rauner changed that to include all guns. But he also put in language that would reinstate the death penalty in Illinois for specific crimes like mass murder or killing a police officer.

Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011 after several people were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to die.

The Illinois State Rifle Association issued a bulletin Thursday that said the veto should be sustained.

“Now we have to make every effort to prevent the amendatory veto from being overridden,” ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said in an email. “We need phone calls to the members of the Illinois House asking legislators to support the governor’s veto.”

Rauner said his package of ideas is intended to bring about what he called important public safety measures. Those ideas include bringing back the death penalty, putting a 72-hour waiting period in place for all firearm purchases, banning bump stocks and trigger cranks, authorizing restraining orders to disarm dangerous people and requiring judges and prosecutors to explain why charges are reduced in plea agreements for violent offenders in gun cases.

“[Rauner] handed a bunch of things to people who are less interested in guns and he handed a bunch of things to people who are more interested in guns and hard line on criminal law,” Lang said.

House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is promoting an amendment to Senate Bill 2580 filed by Carroll to bring Rauner’s ideas up for a hearing at 2 p.m. Monday in the Judiciary-Criminal Committee.

“The issues the governor raised … deserve a full hearing and consideration before the House,” Madigan said in a statement. “We look forward to hearing from stakeholders and continuing our effort to keep our children, our schools and our communities safe from senseless gun violence.”

Rauner said Friday’s deadly mass shooting at a Texas school was another reminder there needs to be common sense policies in place to protect children. He said his proposals would free up resources for armed school resource officers at public schools.

“Just like the hero in Dixon [Illinois] who stopped a shooter in his tracks effectively in Dixon,” Rauner said. “We need that in every school that would like it and we also need mental health professionals, and I’ve proposed ways that we can fund that for each school to keep the schools safer.”

Rauner said local sales taxes should be freed up to hire more school resource officers.

On Wednesday in Dixon, school resource officer Mark Dallas shot and wounded Matthew Milby, a 19-year-old former student of Dixon High School, when Milby allegedly opened fire with a rifle. There were no other injuries.

Given that Rauner has been in office for more than three years, during which there were multiple mass shootings across the country, the gun proposals seem like a last-minute effort, Lang said.

“We haven’t heard all that much from him,” Lang said. “And now in the 11th hour he wants to be a person who wants to talk about guns and guns safety, and try to pander to both sides.”

Supreme Court Ruling Overturns Ban On Sports Betting

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey in the case that was formerly known as Chris Christie vs. NCAA (Christie’s name has been supplanted by Phil Murphy, the state’s new governor), striking down a 25-year old federal law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that largely outlawed sports betting outside of Nevada.

The court overruled a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, saying PASPA violates the state’s 10th Amendment rights, thereby creating a path for New Jersey and other states to offer sports betting.

“Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” the opinion reads. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

What happens next?

New Jersey has been preparing in earnest for legalized sports wagering since 2012, and many locations are ready to move quickly. Monmouth Park — a racetrack on the Jersey Shore — says it could open betting windows within the next two weeks.

It could take other states weeks, or even months, to follow New Jersey’s blueprint, if they choose. One exception is Delaware, said Daniel Wallach, a sports gaming law expert and attorney at Becker & Poliakof, noting that the state already as infrastructure in place and doesn’t require any legislative tweaks.

Which states will be next?

Many state legislatures have been working on bills in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and many were waiting to see whether the court would strike down PASPA entirely. Many places have already concluded their 2018 legislative sessions, which could mean state lawmakers can’t address the matter until next year.

While New Jersey and Delaware could have betting windows open soon, states such as West Virginia and Mississippi are also poised to move quickly. States such as Pennsylvania and Connecticut could be racing to get in the game, as well. Nearly 20 states have introduced bills that could legalize sports betting, and a 2017 report from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming estimates that as many as 32 states could offer legal sports betting within the next five years.

What sports will I be able bet on?

The Supreme Court opinion means states can offer the same betting options as any other sports books, including college and professional sports, horse racing, golf, combat sports and non-American sporting events.

Is there anything I won’t be able to bet on?

Some sports leagues have urged states to ban some prop bets, primarily the situational variety that can be easily impacted by a single player or decision without necessarily altering the game’s outcome. For example, the leagues don’t want to see betting lines offered on which player will commit the first foul of a game, or whether the first pitch of a game is a ball or strike.

Many bills are encouraging mobile and online betting options. Without these options, gambling advocates warn that bettors will still turn to offshore accounts and illegal bookmakers.

New Jersey sports books will be able to take bets via phone or computer, but not right away. There will be a licensing process that could take weeks — possibly a few months — before books will be able to take bets remotely. Even then, only intrastate wagers will be permitted.

Can I place in-game wagers?

Like many of the details, in the absence of federal legislation, this ultimately could vary from state to state. Some of the proposed bills specifically allow for in-game betting, such as those in West Virginia and New York.

I already have accounts with DraftKings and FanDuel. Will they offer sports betting?

A: Many expect both these companies — the two giants in the world of daily fantasy sports — to quickly jump into this space and offer a large menu of sports betting options. They already have much of the infrastructure in place, and a long list of users familiar with their platforms.

In the meantime, those companies could still partner with specific casinos or venues, particularly on the mobile and online side of the business.

Are the pro sports leagues happy about this?

In 2012, the five biggest sports entities in the United States sued to prevent New Jersey from entering the sports gaming business. But since then, some have altered their stance. The NBA and Major League Baseball have both said some form of legal sports gambling seems inevitable, and have teamed together to urge states to pass bills that would help protect the integrity of their sports – while also directing some profits in the direction of the leagues.

While all of the leagues will likely take on added costs – education, monitoring and investigations, for example – they could also stand to make plenty of money through new partnerships and business opportunities.

What about the NCAA?

The world of college sports, relying on amateur student-athletes, has been resolute in its opposition of sports wagering.

There has been talk that the leagues will want a percentage of the money wagered? Is that happening? Does it impact bettors?

Major League Baseball and the NBA have proposed states mandate a 1 percent kickback to the leagues for assuming added risk. They liken to this to an “integrity fee,” or a “royalty to the league.” Some states have balked and the leagues have expressed a willingness to take less than 1 percent.

Some gambling advocates say cutting into sports books’ profits with such fees could force them to offer tighter odds, which could push bettors back to the illegal markets to make their wagers.

How big is the sports gambling industry?

While it’s probably impossible to accurately estimate, experts suggest that illegal betting in the United States is a $50-150 billion business – perhaps significantly more.

According to research by UNLV’s Center for Gaming Research, legal sports betting in Nevada totaled nearly $5 billion last year, led by football — both college and professional — which accounted for $1.76 billion.

A 2017 report from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming estimated that legal sports gambling could be a $6 billion industry — perhaps as much $16 billion if more states eventually get onboard.

Could this lead to corruption or scandals?

That has certainly been the big fear, which has prompted the leagues to dig in their heels on this issue for so long. The leagues know they’ll have to take on added costs to educate players and monitor betting trends to guard against any suspect activity.

But gambling advocates are quick to point out that sports gambling already takes place on a massive scale, meaning the leagues are already vulnerable to corruption.

What happens to that federal law that largely banned sports betting outside of Las Vegas?

Even with PASPA struck down, Congress could still move to establish federal guidelines that would produce uniformity from state to state.

On Dec. 7 — the same day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case — Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., introduced the Gaming Accountability and Modernization Enhancement Act, or GAME Act. His proposal doesn’t set federal guidelines, per se, but it does aim to remove obstacles and provide the legal framework for states to adopt sports betting.

What will Illinois do? Is there a plan and desire to allow for sports gambling in this state?

The gambling industry wants to capitalize on what’s long been a valuable black-market industry. They contend strict state regulations and high taxes could keep legal businesses from being able to compete with illegal bookkeepers, saying they already have incentive to make sure games stay clean to preserve their own bottom line.

Will Green, an official of the American Gaming Association, said high taxes could “burden a legal sports book with unnecessary costs” and make legal businesses unable to meet the higher payouts of illegal companies that currently operate offshore.

“It will cut the legs off of legal sports betting, quite honestly, before it has the chance to walk,” he said.

Opponents, though, say expanded gambling does more harm than the potential tax money could do good. Anita Bedell, executive director of Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems, said online gambling is a “gateway” that could get kids hooked, saying children are already “bombarded with gambling ads” on social media.

Gambling industry officials estimated sports betting could net the state about $85 million in taxes.

Illinois is was not the only state betting on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the federal ban. Similar legislation to regulate and tax sports betting has been proposed in at least a dozen states across the country, including Indiana, Missouri, California and Massachusetts. State legislatures in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Mississippi also passed laws in recent months.

Nonprofit pushing Illinois to lower voting age to 16 for local elections

While Illinois lawmakers and local officials are considering raising the legal age to smoke and own firearms, a push to lower the voting age is gaining steam.

Vote 16 Illinois is a chapter of Vote 16 USA, a nonprofit with a goal to lower the legal voting age requirements for local elections. The group is working with state lawmakers to start the conversation about getting 16-year-olds the right to vote.

Brandon Klugman, with Vote 16’s national chapter, said that voting at 16 sets the tone for civic participation in later years.

“When people vote in the first election they’re eligible for, they’re much more likely to continue voting in subsequent elections,” he said.

Perhaps more compelling to detractors of allowing a 16-year-old to vote in local elections: If they’re already working and paying taxes, shouldn’t they have a say in that process?

“Young people who are working and paying taxes are definitely aware of that fact,” Klugman said.

When asked why it’s acceptable for a young person to vote five years before they can buy cigarettes, as was approved by the Illinois Senate in April, Klugman said the timelines aren’t comparable.

“Each age line should be set at what makes the most sense in that particular behavior and that particular activity,” he said.

Allowing local votes at 16 would require changing the state’s constitution. The Illinois Constitution would have to be amended to allow only home-rule municipalities the option to lower their age requirement. It’s not impossible. It was changed via referendum in 1988 to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, where it stands now.

Eighteen would still be the age limit for elections with federal consequences.